Why do we care about liberty?

[Garth Zietsman]

We have been saying we value liberty above prosperity and various other things but one thing I've always wondered - why do we value liberty so much?

Is it something Freudian?  Were we brought up under some kind of extreme authoritarianism?  Are we just contrarians who don't like being told what to do?  Is there some logical reason why liberty should be preferred to prosperity or some other concept like thriving?

How about introspecting for a while and sharing why it is that YOU value liberty so highly.

I expect that many will have difficulty coming up with something - particularly something that doesn't appeal to some utility value.

I will post my own contribution soon.

Garth

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Wow, Garth, this is on a par with asking why the Big bang wasn't uniform.

As you suspect, "many (including me) have difficulty coming up with something". 

I have never been able to fathom why I like liberty, and often wish it weren't so.  I think a small minority value it, and fewer still grasp the concept.

The best theory I've heard is the "mutant theory of libertarianism".

Like all predilections, it seems to be innate -- wired into DNA.  I flatter myself by thinking of it as an advanced form of evolution.  There is a potentially serious case for this flattering view, namely that the concept of and desire for liberty is a recent phenomenon in advanced societies.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
Leon Louw

work:  +27-11-884-0270

mobile:  +27-84-618-0348

www.freemarketfoundation.com

[Erik Peers]

I suspect that there is a correlation between the desire for liberty and intelligence. I haven't done a formal study on it, but from personal anecdotal experience I would think that there is a positive correlation. Be interesting to show how strong the correlation is. There is a positive correlation between IQ and being non religious. They could be related.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Good point Erik.  I have research to that effect.  

Garth, you might find of on the net -- research into libertarians.  I think they were disproportionately high IQ, engineers, economists and computer programmers.

Being high IQ is probably also characteristic of socialists given the left-wing bias of intellectuals.

I think you said once, Garth, that there may be no such bias.

I think there is research data suggesting that economists tend to be libertarian and other social scientists (if that's the right word for their foggy disciplines) tend to be socialists.

[Garth Zietsman]

As it happens I've explored the question of intelligence and political ideology quite extensively.  Briefly the whole IQ distribution of libertarians is shifted up - there are few dummies and lots of smart folk.  Liberals/socialists seem to attract both the smart and the rather dull.  Conservatism seems to appeal to the bulk of people near the average.  Populists seem to be the opposite of libertarians - lots of dummies and few bright people.  Note that although conservatism appeals to the average that identifying with the Republican party seems to appeal more to the smart.

The IQ connection is much stronger on social than on economic issues but it is nevertheless a noticeable trend for brighter people to favor freer markets and less government.

I suspect the appeal of libertarianism to very intelligent people lies in two facts.  First liberty issues are hard to grasp.  Secondly smart people tend to grow up confident they can work out what to do for themselves without the interference of various idiot others.  They are right.  I found for example that while very smart girls who have had sex with at least two partners very rarely fall pregnant outside of marriage but dull-average girls can't seem to manage this. There is trend is still detectable when it comes to a second out of wedlock child - the dull don't seem to learn.  The bright thrive without being told what to do and can experiment as they will without getting into or causing trouble.  That is their experience so how can they condone restrictions on their liberty.  I imagine the dull have a different experience and might therefore develop a yearning for help or just fail to see the problem of being restricted.  Interestingly the experience of the bright could just as easily push them into social engineering i.e. if they can manage themselves they can manage everyone.

A while ago I mentioned a study I did on a survey of philosophers.  It may be relevant here.  I found that libertarians and conservatives believe in free will.  By free will I mean the idea that where we end up is the product of choices we are able to make.  For example the girl who fell pregnant before marriage could have chosen not to do so - she knows about readily available cheap contraception; the man who retires with insufficient funds could have chosen to save more instead of drink at the pub every night, etc.  Liberals/socialists and populists/communitarians do not think we have much in the way of that sort of free will.  They think things like "society makes criminals".  That covers one dimension - economic freedom.

The other dimension was materialism/nominalism versus essentialism/abstractions/idealism - a kind of Aristotle versus Plato.  Libertarians and liberals/socialists accept the materialist/nominalist pole while conservatives and populist/communitarians accept the idealist/essentialist pole.  Idealist think there are things like objective morals, Platonic forms, absolute authority etc so they think there are standards everyone should adhere to, whereas the nominalist/materialists think there are just atoms, evolution and personal values so people should be free to develop their own lifestyle.

I think both these dimensions and intelligence are likely to have strong genetic roots but that experience will also play a role.  

In my case I never did like being restricted.  I knew I could manage just fine and would cause trouble.  I also somewhat arrogantly believed I knew better than most of the adults who were in charge of me.  Actually that's probably correct.  Later I became a Marxist (I thought it was somewhat cool and Romantic to be a deviant and a spy) and very shortly experienced first hand the authoritarian ethos of that ideology.  The mindlessness of the military further increased my distaste for authority.  After a short Green interlude and the shock of seeing how authoritarian and downright theological they were I looked for another home.  A bit of Popper, Hayek, Rand, Nietzsche, and some others like Foucault, some history on the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and various other dictatorships gave me some intellectual scaffolding for my emotional state and voila I've been a libertarian ever since (27 years).

Hierarchy and tradition are also things that never gelled with me.  I never quite absorbed why I couldn't speak to a teacher, my parents, a minister, a doctor, a CEO or a general as an equal (and use their first names).  I felt like laughing when I had to give orders in the army.  I couldn't see why the old practices and ideas were any better than the new alternatives.  They just seemed like arbitrary fashions most of the time.

So for me the appeal of liberty has been a case of finding authority personally galling plus some intellectual justification for my feelings.  

[Janette]

Garth,

Do libertarians really value liberty above prosperity and health? I think not.

To me one without the other is not acceptable. It is not a case of hierarchy.

However, I do think some people are drawn to value liberty more than other people do. That probably has to do with their personality/upbringing. I think at one LibSem long ago we briefly chatted about what Briggs type personality was drawn to libertarianism.

--

[Garth Zietsman]

Janette I think it more true to say libertarians will trade far more prosperity for liberty than most - should it ever come to that.  In the past on this forum I have said I would be willing to give up a little liberty for a much better quality life.  It is also true that I would be willing to give up a fair amount of prosperity in order to secure my liberty.  I would prefer life in the US at 50s wealth levels rather than a Soviet Union with thrice the GDP per capita.  It's about the size of the trade off.

[Trevor Watkins]

I do think that a specific personality type values liberty above prosperity, the 9% green type from Frances' Myer-Briggs presentation. However, I think this type has been present throughout history, and has helped drive a lot of human development. The first young caveman who left the safety and security and oppression of the local group to make his own way in the next valley is an example. The modern youngsters who choose to migrate to a freer jurisdiction from an oppressive one at great personal risk are much the same. 

I don't think there is much utility in liberty, nor in my preference for liberty over safety and prosperity. It may be a matter of intelligence - I think the ideas of liberty make more absolute sense than most competitive ideas that I have been exposed to, such as nationalism, socialism, catholicism, etc. But I certainly don't think you have to be smart to prefer liberty - ask any hermit.

The fact that virtually every social movement that I can think of suggests its ultimate aim is freedom and liberty for its members contradicts how few of these movements actually mean what they say, or achieve their stated objective. Libertarianism, by and large, seems to be the exception.

Trevor Watkins

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Sadly, you may be right, Trevor.  It would have been more comforting were liberty some kind of evolutionary advance.

At least we now have Plan B.  Lamenting the limited appeal of libertarianism, someone suggested at this month's Jhb LibDin that our best bet would be to  turn liberty into a religion.

I haven't started many religions so don't know how it's done, but I think we'll need some oaths and rituals, an "inspired" scripture, generous rewards for converts (much more than mere liberty), some violence (wars, terrorism, human sacrifice), and the like. Monotheism is in, so we'll need only one god which cuts our workload. Frances can regenerate some icons; Garth can don robes and mumble incantations; Neil's software can be adapted to sign them on and collect tithes, Piet's union expertise can mass mobilise the flock; Mises.org can provide High Priests, Bob might fund a constitutional challenge against rival faiths, Vivian can generate a list of heresies for excommunications, Audrey has already organised the obligatory virgin birth -- there's one in every religion -- and we have all the saints we need (Mises, Smith, Hayek etc).  A social media campaign from Trevor will obviate the need to wonder in the wilderness for years.  As for scripture, we don't have to generate anything new; Ivo can cobble an edited version of our LiSA emails into as fine a volume as any.

A Luta Continua!

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

[Paul AH Hjul]

(With only a bit of shameless self-promotion) I put it slightly differently: There is a continuous thread of human history that is made up of people subscribing to the Liberal Ideal. Various ism's, movements etc ... have arisen as a result of contexts within which adherents apply the Liberal Ideal to their context. Unfortunately movements are easily hijacked and ideals can be lost. I "define ... a “liberal ideal” (lowercase) as an immutable norm about how the world should be that relates to maximization of human freedom and opportunity. “The Liberal Ideal” (upper case) is similarly the belief that there are immutable norms and ideals, that some of these ideals have been discovered across cultural lines by humanity, and that the adherence to the ideals produces a better polity and society through thefree nature of humanity."

http://www.academia.edu/521452/PATONS_NOVELS_AND_THE_LIBERAL_IDEAL_A_CONSTRUCTION_OF_THE_LIBERAL_IDEAL_OUT_OF_THE_LIFE_AND_WORK_OF_ALAN_PATON
Religiou Leonism (or Leonanity or would it be Watkinianism?) would of course be a particular project that can be measured against a Liberal Ideal and I suspect that the practices will fall short if robes of any shape or form are mandatory - irrespective of the obvious aesthetic and sanitation benefits of requiring clothing.

Unfortunately societies constantly find new ways to kill off adherence to a Liberal Ideal (which has interesting implications for natural selection and species adaption - are human's doomed to evolve into a servile species in order to survive?) as peculiarly The Guardian quite elegantly points out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/may/04/leave-them-kids-alone-griffiths

Now I think the author has missed a key component of the problem - which is the motive of parents to regulate their children - and that taking responsibility for something over which you don't have control is more difficult and less "fun" (in that deep sadistic sense that humans poses) than having something do your bidding with the challenge to tame it.

For those not imbibing my propaganda on account of length to quote Paton:

By liberalism I don’t mean the creed of any party or any century. I mean a generosity of spirit, a tolerance of others, an attempt to comprehend otherness, a commitment to the rule of law, a high ideal of the worth and dignity of man, a repugnance for authoritarianism and a love for freedom

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Hmmmm, if not religion, then what?

Maybe we should have libertarianism classified as porn.  Or say it includes (non-human) animal rights.  Or that libertarians never get AIDS.  (Well, only deviant libertarians.

We have to find the Holy Grail.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

[Jon Russell]

Good points Trevor. I am a US citizen with liberty ties across the world. I believe the desire for freedom it is built in to the human DNA, but it has be suppressed over the generations. I also believe the desire for freedom extends beyond our species, but that is a different subject. 

On a completely superficial level, in order to resell freedom to the general public, we have to do so on an emotional level and not philosophical level. The statist can easily sell a government program when he or she wraps it in emotion; when they try to sell it on cost & logic they lose their audience and most often lose the program. Often we have to wait until a government program has become corrupt or too expensive before people will give freedom a try.  All too often the government plays "peril and rescue" with the public by creating the problem and acting like they are the only ones to fix it. 

I have come to the conclusion that our biggest obstacle to freedom is packaging our message to an emotional public. If we develop our ability to sell freedom from an emotional perspective, we will see major advances in the liberty movement. Food for thought. Thank for adding me to your group. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

Sincerely,

Jon Russell

On Facebook

On Twitter @Jon_Russell

Cell: 360-624-4934 

[Trevor Watkins]

On 13 May 2013 13:27, Paul AH Hjul <hjul...@gmail.com> wrote:

Religious Leonism (or Leonanity or would it be Watkinianism?) would of course be a particular project that can be measured against a Liberal Ideal and I suspect that the practices will fall short if robes of any shape or form are mandatory

I suspect that the absence of robes is more likely to be mandatory in any church started by Leon or I. 

I have, in recent times, dabbled with the church of the flying spaghetti monster. 

Trevor Watkins 

[Stephen vJ]

Sell freedom to the general public ? Not going to happen. That is because liberty is a logical conclusion for us, but we are biological freaks capable of that kind of thinking. The general public is not capable of thinking that way and their lack of libertarianism is decidedly genetic. Predetermined. Unfuckinchangable. Cast in 300k years of evolutionary DNA stone. You wont get it into their skulls any more than debating a lion into vegetarianism. You might be able to fool the genetics with emotional signals or simulated hormonal smells, but that is not going to get you more than a few fractions of a percentage support, even that merely temporarily. Read The Authoritarians by Prof. Bob Altemeyer. And then cement it down with The Selfish Gene by Dawkins and The Accidental Mind by David Linden. The best we can do is to fight for liberty from the minority position which we occupy in the otherwise genetically authoritarian society, hoping it is an evolutionary stable strategy.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Stephen vJ]

P.S. Why do we care about liberty ? Because it is an evolutionary stable strategy for genes to cause a small fraction of the population to have logical and dissenting thoughts, for the majority to follow cultural norms and for a significant portion to be bullies dictating those norms. Our libertarianism is at least partly chemically induced. More or less of those genes in the population would not be a stable equilibrium, it seems. That's pretty much it.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Stephen vJ]

Oh, I'm reminded now of something I read a few years ago and then posted on this forum, which lead to me being introduced via email to Mark Skousen. He mentioned something in his Making of Modern Economics which lead me to deduce that libertarianism had something to do with nurture, rather than nature. Adam Smith, Mises, Bastiat, Say and many other of our heroes had close relationships with their mothers. Smith lived with his until she died. Dictators and commies like Marx, Roussouw, Lenin and such had terrible or non-existent relationships with their mothers. Paradoxically, my subsequent digging into people's private lives has lead me to believe that Anarcho capitalists could come from an even worse mother-son relationship i.e. the worse the relationship, the more authoritarian the son, up to a point and then it swings entirely to the other end of the spectrum.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

--

[Stephen vJ]

I don't think libertarianism is recent, if the story of Cyrus of Persia is correct. Then again, 3000 years is not much in evolutionary terms.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Garth Zietsman]

An important follow on to my question is how do you approach a non-libertarian with the view to convincing them that liberty is important?  If liberty is no more than our subjective preference why should they care?  One answer is that liberty and freedom give more room for a variety of preferences to be expressed.  Another is that morality doesn't exist without the freedom to choose your action.  Feel free to add your own.

Another question for me is just how much liberty is enough?  Is the sort of liberty enjoyed by the US enough?  Would living anywhere in Western Europe be intolerable from a liberty point of view?  I mean more money is always better (assuming constant value) but surely there is a point where it would make little difference if you had a bit less - especially if that meant a higher likelihood of an honest smile?  As libertarians who value liberty far more than most, is it the case that nothing short of the maximum possible, consistent with the same liberty for all, will do?

For me more liberty is better (other things being equal) but I tend to think in terms of some minimum quantity of liberty which (while short of the maximum possible) is high enough for me to stop worrying about liberty when anywhere above it.  I think most liberal democracies are pretty close to that point but the majority of the world is well short of it.  I expect stuff like freedom of movement, speech, lifestyle, means of making a living, association, contract and trade, plus freedom from violence, to be covered.  I have problems with zoning laws, licence restrictions and government survellence under the excuse of terrorism.  I'm less worried about 2% inflation targets or the mere existance of government.  

I'm interested in hearing from those of you who have more stringent standards.

[Jon Russell]

Stephen, So do we just accept the statist position as the natural state of man and continue to email each other on google groups in the hope of taking our argument to the next level of enlightenment in our group? If we do not engage in the arena of popular culture and political activism we deserve what comes to us because we have left our fellow man with no option. I am not there. 

Food for thought. 

[Trevor Watkins]

On 14 May 2013 00:48, Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

 I think most liberal democracies are pretty close to that point but the majority of the world is well short of it.  I expect stuff like freedom of movement, speech, lifestyle, means of making a living, association, contract and trade, plus freedom from violence, to be covered.

All of the examples you cite are encroached upon, if not curtailed, even in the most liberal democracies. All nations have passport controls, and reserve the right to halt your movement. Most nations place arbitrary taste restrictions on your lifestyle (try going naked, or humping a sheep in public). In this PC age, there are a range of things you will be prosecuted for saying in public or print. Most governments interfere endlessly in your means of making a living, association, contract and trade. And in SA and USA, it is often your government that is the source of violence, as opposed to protecting you from it. Nevertheless, I agree that you can fashion a fairly comfortable, liberal life in most western democracies if you are suitably subservient, pay your taxes and fill in your forms.  That is their cunning trap.

Trevor Watkins 

[Trevor Watkins]

90% of the people I know are 90% libertarian in outlook, generally with just one or two objections. How many of your friends initiate violence to achieve their objectives? How many indulge in fraud? How many fail to ask your consent before entering your house, eating your food, etc? Force you to follow their religion? Steal your property?

They may think tax is a good idea, or that markets should be regulated, or that gay marriage should be banned, but you will probably find them open to persuasion on all of this.

Our problem as libertarians is not with the 90% - it is with the lying, cheating, stealing, violent 10%. And they are a problem to everyone else as well. 

Trevor Watkins

[Garth Zietsman]

Below

On 14 May 2013 00:48, Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

 I think most liberal democracies are pretty close to that point but the majority of the world is well short of it.  I expect stuff like freedom of movement, speech, lifestyle, means of making a living, association, contract and trade, plus freedom from violence, to be covered.

All of the examples you cite are encroached upon, if not curtailed, even in the most liberal democracies. All nations have passport controls, and reserve the right to halt your movement. Most nations place arbitrary taste restrictions on your lifestyle (try going naked, or humping a sheep in public). In this PC age, there are a range of things you will be prosecuted for saying in public or print. Most governments interfere endlessly in your means of making a living, association, contract and trade. And in SA and USA, it is often your government that is the source of violence, as opposed to protecting you from it. Nevertheless, I agree that you can fashion a fairly comfortable, liberal life in most western democracies if you are suitably subservient, pay your taxes and fill in your forms.  That is their cunning trap.

Quite right Trevor.  Western democracies could still improve the liberty of their citizens in ways that are quite tangible but I still think they are quite close to my minimum.  They must be doing something right if both Cato and Heritage rate them as "fully free". Some even accept some level of public nudity.  There is however some doubt as to whether sheep would be consenting participants. 

[Paul AH Hjul]

The real problem of societies is that its an even lower count than 10% who fall into the lying, cheating, stealing, violent class but 

The thumbsuck on dynamics I am inclined to is as follows:

1% of people are decrepit and have an outright God complex.

2% of people are deeply dangerous and have a disregard for the will of others

12% of people will resort to 

40% of people will pursue any course of action which their belief system and culture permits when told to do so by authority

10% of people will develop a complex balance between obedience, enjoyment and autonomy.

30% of people act to gain enjoyment - freedom is subservient to comfort.

3% of people value humanity

1% of people find happiness in freedom for themself and others

1% of people value their own will above all else and find happiness aesthetically.

So in reality only 2% of people can be relied onto absolutely value freedom and 65% of people can be relied on to obey orders and 95% will partake without issue in oppression of others. This is sadly confirmed by the Milgram experiment in almost every iteration. Combining  structure of authority with a structure of consumption or entitlement will capture 80% of people. Now when some Marxists, socialists and other animals criticize "capitalism" (which they notoriously never define) they are actually criticizing the tyranny of the 80% without realizing that their road is one that leads to a tyranny of the worst 1% rather than having a system that accomodates everybody sans the worst 1%.

The problem is that in every single instance where somebody is in charge it is to the decrepit 1% and not the saints that people look - the saints are being being hermits.

You can convince the 40% to be consumerists just as much as you can ensure compliance from the 30% by facilitating consumption. You can also come to power by inducing fear into sections of the population to the point where you are the authority. The model is obviously not complete - and is thumbsucked largely.

[Janette]

Below:

 

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Garth Zietsman
Sent: 14 May 2013 12:48 AM

An important follow on to my question is how do you approach a non-libertarian with the view to convincing them that liberty is important?   Don’t try to convince them; just open up the concept. If they respond positively then carry on. If they don’t, then change the subject and accept that either you have not approached them correctly, or they are not the right personality type to ever be open to libertarian ideas.

If liberty is no more than our subjective preference why should they care?  One answer is that liberty and freedom give more room for a variety of preferences to be expressed.  Another is that morality doesn't exist without the freedom to choose your action.  Feel free to add your own.

 

Another question for me is just how much liberty is enough? An impossible question to answer as for each person it will be different depending on personality, upbringing, religion etc.

 Is the sort of liberty enjoyed by the US enough?  Would living anywhere in Western Europe be intolerable from a liberty point of view?  I mean more money is always better (assuming constant value) but surely there is a point where it would make little difference if you had a bit less - especially if that meant a higher likelihood of an honest smile?

 As libertarians who value liberty far more than most, is it the case that nothing short of the maximum possible, We are a long way off from that

consistent with the same liberty for all, will do?

 

For me more liberty is better (other things being equal) but I tend to think in terms of some minimum quantity of liberty which (while short of the maximum possible) is high enough for me to stop worrying about liberty when anywhere above it.  I think most liberal democracies are pretty close to that point but the majority of the world is well short of it.  I expect stuff like freedom of movement, speech, lifestyle, means of making a living, association, contract and trade, plus freedom from violence, to be covered.  I have problems with zoning laws, licence restrictions and government survellence under the excuse of terrorism.  I'm less worried about 2% inflation targets or the mere existance of government.  

 

I'm interested in hearing from those of you who have more stringent standards.

The various forms of democracies we have in the world today are nowhere near perfect. Proportional Representation being one of the worst – in my view. There is something better and beyond democracy – we just haven’t evolved to that level yet.

 

[Stephen vJ]

No, I said "The best we can do is to fight for liberty from the minority position which we occupy in the otherwise genetically authoritarian society, hoping it is an evolutionary stable strategy.". Fight. Fight for liberty with all you have. Fight for liberty until it kills you. Have a hundred children to propagate your libertarian genes. You can and should make the world better by fighting oppression and slavery. Just don't expect to ever win an election or to establish a sustainable Libertarian society or think you can achieve a libertarian majority. That is contrary to human nature. Not our nature, for we are freaks.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Stephen vJ]

Altemayer argues that about two thirds of us don't mind or prefer to be dominated... or at least submit as long as others are dominated too, in ways which don't bother us too much or like to see applies to others. The other third of us are quite happy to oblige this wish to be dominated. A small minority of us dissent.

Why this is so has some very interesting causes in genetics, evolution and efficiency at the societal level. It is more efficient to be a sheep and to follow the herd than to figure out each detail for yourself. That is time which could have been spent eating and having sex.

Thinking is hard work with little pay-off for your genes, especially when the state / church / tribal elders can provide two clay tablets with ready-made recipe for life to you in exchange for a mere tenth of the fruits of your labour your labour.

Of course, the whole thing tends towards ever greater levels of serfdom, so the population must contain some dissenting revolutionaries to bring it all back to natural levels every now and then.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Stephen vJ]

Well, your thumb suck values come surprisingly close to what Altemeyer found in his experiments. I am recommending that book for the 18th time now on this forum... Sorry for the repetition, but it is really good.

S. 

Sent from an electronic device.

[Colin Bower]

Some quotes and excerpts from an article at:

http://www.thenation.com/article/174219/nietzsches-marginal-children-friedrich-hayek?page=full#

which may shed an interesting light on this discussion:

“Freedom to order our own conduct in the sphere where material circumstances force a choice upon us,” Hayek wrote, “is the air in which alone moral sense grows and in which moral values are daily re-created.”

Yet a careful reading of Hayek’s argument reveals that liberty for him is neither the highest good nor an intrinsic good. It is a contingent and instrumental good (a consequence of our ignorance and the condition of our progress), the purpose of which is to make possible the emergence of a heroic legislator of value.

“If there were omniscient men, if we could know not only all that affects the attainment of our present wishes but also our future wants and desires, there would be little case for liberty.”  Hayek

Colin B.

[Garth Zietsman]

Wow Colin what an awesome article.  Nietzsche is probably my favorite philosopher and this article has left me with renewed faith in Hayek (and other Austrian economists) and renewed understanding of the appeal of Ayn Rand (though I doubt the author had that intention).  I hsve never been sympathetic to value agnosticism so to see Hayek reconcile my view with liberty is refreshing.

I am not at all confident that the Nietzscean based argument for liberty will have any influence among the left or average person.  Rather I suspect they will be appaulled by the underlying elitism - as no doubt some on this forum will be too. 

Garth

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

All my friends initiate violence to achieve their objectives .... by delegation to a formidable crime syndicate called "government".

I have difficulty assigning a %.  It seems to me that virtually everyone wants violence used or threatened.  Only mutants called "libertarians" question it. 

To what extent to most people think there should be limits?  As far as I can tell, most people are happy for those who do not capitulate to be killed.  That is why most people capitulate (pay tax, fill forms, stop at road blacks, submit to arrest, go to court when summoned etc).  The norm is for people who resist to be killed for every transgression if they do not submit or cannot be overpowered.

I know of virtually no one who is bothered by this, or even recognises it as an essential aspect of government.

[Trevor Watkins]

On 15 May 2013 15:45, Leon Louw (gmail) <leon...@gmail.com> wrote:

stop at road blacks

Just love the Freudian slip...

Trevor Watkins - Base Software
bas...@gmail.com 083 44 11 721 - 042 293 1405 - (fax)0866 532 363
PO Box 3302, Jeffreys Bay, 6330

[Paul AH Hjul]

>>It seems to me that virtually everyone wants violence used or threatened.  Only mutants called "libertarians" question it

any classical liberal questions it - and most philosophers question it, many just reach a justification that are happy  with

Moreover some "libertarians" seem okay with violence use such as the death penalty

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

I not aware of anyone of note questioning the basic implications of whatever government coercion they condone.  Whatever it is, however minimalist they want the state to be, they are happy about the ultimate means of enforcement being death.

The death penalty is a different issue.  It is about the degree to which the liberty of criminals should be compromised by their crime.  Should people who swings a punch be jailed for life?  Most would say no.  Should they be required to compensate the victim with R5000.  Many would say yes.  Should someone who rapes and mutilates 100 babies be required to pay R5000?  Most would say no, not enough.  Jailed for life.  Many would say yes; some would say not enough, rather death penalty.  A debate about the appropriate penalty is different from a debate about what to do with someone who trades without a license.  As things stand, unlicensed traders will be killed if they carry on trading and resist arrest.   Which virtually no one queries.  They query what should be allowed, not whether people should be killed for non-capitulation.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

[Paul AH Hjul]

Locke certainly does - he questions and reaches the conclusion that coercion of that in the res publica and exercised for the common weal is legitimate.

And Locke is weaker on the social contract than many others.

The problem with state minimalism is its starting premise is the size of the state and a Utopian proposition to make it smaller rather than adopting the first questions: 

(1) Is there a res publica or should everything be deemed res privata - most libertarians I have met imply the later without declaring outright.

(2) Who may enforce, and by what means, undertakings made by a person - if there is sanctity of contract and somebody violates a contract by what means is the obligation satisfied. The whole issue of legal tender becomes of great interest to me here (the false assumptions about the "freedom" of the gold standard over fiat currency for example).

(3) What means exists to deter violations of consent and when is consent required before a measure is binding on somebody - democrats contend that a simple majority  suffices for something to have binding effect, libertarians should contend that I am bound by a law only if I consent to it; I contend that a person is bound to a rule if they knowingly benefit from it without protest and reservation (such as joining a voluntary association)

The civilized world moves past the divine rights of kings who secure these rights in a mythology of v anguishing some imagined foe. 

[Trevor Watkins]

On 15 May 2013 18:39, Paul AH Hjul <hjul...@gmail.com> wrote:

What means exists to deter violations of consent and when is consent required before a measure is binding on somebody

I have answered this question in considerable detail at http://libsa.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/the-consent-axiom/, with my own opinion of how this should be handled.

[Trevor Watkins]

On 15 May 2013 18:39, Paul AH Hjul <hjul...@gmail.com> wrote:

I contend that a person is bound to a rule if they knowingly benefit from it without protest and reservation

As specified in my consent axiom, EXPLICIT consent is required for a valid consensual agreement. Of course, we daily indulge in hundreds of implicit consent agreements, such as paying for food consumed in a restaurant, which can be considered to be covered by precedent. If a restaurant begins charging for simply entering a restaurant, it will require explicit consent from patrons to do so at the door.

If Al-Qaeda pass a rule exempting people whose surnames begin with"W" from future Jihads, am I somehow bound to that rule if I don't formally protest?

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Interesting that you demand explicit consent (in the absence of something like precedent).

Needless to say agree with everything else you write on the consent axiom (which axiom is by far the best formulation of the libertarian paradigm).

I don't see why being explicit should mean that there's zero or lesser consent.

The jurisprudential and philosophical question is whether there's consent, not the means of consent. 

Whether there's sufficient evidence of consent is a jurisprudential question.  Libertarianism says there must be consent.  That is the end of what libertarianism has to say about the matter.  There's nothing in the libertarian paradigm of relevance to questions of evidence.  Libertarianism says don't assault, rape, steal or defraud.  That's it.  What constitutes assault, rape, theft or fraud is not a libertarian question, but one to be resolved by means of dispute resolution.

Massively complex consensual relationships evolve in everyday life where consent is implicit and conspicuously adequate from sex to emergencies, from socialising to commerce.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Trevor Watkins]

I take your point Leon. The merest nod of your head at an auction can cost you millions of dollars, but everyone is generally happy that full consent has been achieved.  However, when challenged, you had better have your precedents ready.

Trevor Watkins - Base Software
bas...@gmail.com 083 44 11 721 - 042 293 1405 - (fax)0866 532 363
PO Box 3302, Jeffreys Bay, 6330